nadal on clay = most dominant tennis ever?

Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by raiden031, Apr 18, 2009.

  1. raiden031

    raiden031 Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2006
    Messages:
    5,997
    Does any player's dominance in history either short or long term compare to nadal's dominance on clay the past couple years? I'm trying to emphasize acute dominance such as his level of game above everyone else, not his longevity of dominance.

    Some other comparisons are:

    Sampras on grass
    Federer on grass
    Federer's 4 years at #1
    Laver's calendar slams
     
    #1
  2. CyBorg

    CyBorg Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2007
    Messages:
    5,544
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    Borg on red clay surfaces from 1977 to 1980. I've excluded green clay results and exhibitions, as I don't have the complete ones, but those are good too.

    The combined record is 88-2. Including 1981, it's 105-3.

    1977

    Nice, France
    R32 Hrebec, Jiri (CZE) N/A 6-2 7-5
    R16 Dominguez, Patrice (FRA) N/A 6-2 6-1
    Q Prajoux, Belus (CHI) N/A 6-4 6-2
    S Pecci Sr., Victor (PAR) N/A 6-3 6-3
    W Vilas, Guillermo (ARG) N/A 6-4 1-6 6-2 6-0

    Monte Carlo, Monaco
    R32 Schaller, Gilbert (AUT) 64 6-3 6-3
    R16 Amritraj, Vijay (IND) N/A 6-2 6-2
    Q Dibbs, Eddie (USA) N/A 6-4 6-2
    S Vilas, Guillermo (ARG) N/A 6-2 6-3
    W Barazzutti, Corrado (ITA) N/A 6-3 7-5 6-0

    Madrid, Spain
    R64 Norback, Jan (SWE) N/A 6-0 6-1
    R32 Prajoux, Belus (CHI) N/A 3-6 6-0 6-1
    R16 Andersson, Birger (SWE) N/A 6-4 6-3
    Q Higueras, Jose (ESP) N/A 6-2 6-2
    S Dibbs, Eddie (USA) N/A 6-2 6-3 6-3
    W Fillol Sr., Jaime (CHI) N/A 6-3 6-0 6-7 7-6

    Barcelona, Spain
    R64 Ruiz, Rafael (ESP) N/A 6-0 6-0
    R32 Moreno, Jose (ESP) N/A 6-3 4-6 6-4
    R16 Pecci Sr., Victor (PAR) N/A 6-2 6-3
    Q Higueras, Jose (ESP) N/A 6-0 6-1
    S Dibbs, Eddie (USA) N/A 6-0 6-0 6-4
    W Orantes, Manuel (ESP) N/A 6-2 7-5 6-2

    1978:

    Rome, Italy
    R64 Ycaza, Ricardo (ECU) N/A 4-6 6-0 6-2
    R32 Deblicker, Eric (FRA) N/A 5-7 6-2 6-0
    R16 Tanner, Roscoe (USA) N/A 6-2 6-4
    Q Solomon, Harold (USA) N/A 6-2 6-1
    S Dibbs, Eddie (USA) N/A 6-4 6-3 6-0
    W Panatta, Adriano (ITA) N/A 1-6 6-3 6-1 4-6 6-3

    Roland Garros, France
    R128 Deblicker, Eric (FRA) N/A 6-1 6-1 6-1
    R64 ***el, Rick (USA) N/A 6-0 6-1 6-0
    R32 Bertolucci, Paolo (ITA) N/A 6-0 6-2 6-2
    R16 Tanner, Roscoe (USA) N/A 6-2 6-4 7-6
    Q Ramirez, Raul (MEX) N/A 6-3 6-3 6-0
    S Barazzutti, Corrado (ITA) N/A 6-0 6-1 6-0
    W Vilas, Guillermo (ARG) N/A 6-1 6-1 6-3

    Davis Cup, Bastad, Sweden
    R Orantes, Manuel (ESP) 6-2 5-7 6-3 6-3
    R Higueras, Jose (ESP) 6-1 6-4 6-2

    Bastad, Sweden
    R32 Giammalva, Tony (USA) N/A 6-1 6-0
    R16 Carmichael, Bob (AUS) N/A 6-0 6-0
    Q Lewis, Chris (NZL) N/A 7-6 6-3
    S Munoz, Antonio (ESP) N/A 6-4 6-1
    W Barazzutti, Corrado (ITA) N/A 6-1 6-2

    1979

    Monte Carlo, Monaco
    R32 Bertolucci, Paolo (ITA) N/A 6-0 6-1
    R16 Higueras, Jose (ESP) N/A 6-4 6-4
    Q Clerc, Jose-Luis (ARG) N/A 4-6 6-2 6-1
    S Pecci Sr., Victor (PAR) N/A 6-4 6-1
    W Gerulaitis, Vitas (USA) N/A 6-2 6-1 6-3

    Hamburg, Germany
    R64 Cox, Mark (GBR) N/A 6-1 6-1
    R32 Ocleppo, Gianni (ITA) N/A 6-3 7-5
    R16 Teltscher, Eliot (USA) N/A 4-1 RET

    Roland Garros, France
    R128 Smid, Tomas (CZE) N/A 6-1 5-7 6-4 6-4
    R64 Gullikson, Tom (USA) N/A 6-3 7-6 5-7 6-4
    R32 Moore, Raymond (RSA) N/A 6-3 6-1 6-0
    R16 Moretton, Gilles (FRA) N/A 7-5 6-4 6-2
    Q Gildemeister, Hans (CHI) N/A 6-4 6-1 7-5
    S Gerulaitis, Vitas (USA) N/A 6-2 6-1 6-0
    W Pecci Sr., Victor (PAR) N/A 6-3 6-1 6-7 6-4

    Davis Cup, Bucharest, Romania
    R Haradau, Dimitru (ROM) 6-3 6-0 6-1
    R Nastase, Ilie (ROM) 6-3 6-0 6-0

    Bastad, Sweden
    R32 Freyss, Christophe (FRA) N/A 6-4 6-0
    R16 Zugarelli, Antonio (ITA) N/A 6-0 6-1
    Q Martin, Billy (USA) N/A 6-0 6-3
    S Johansson, Kjell (SWE) N/A 6-3 6-0
    W Taroczy, Balazs (HUN) N/A 6-1 7-5

    Davis Cup, Prague, Czechoslovakia
    R Lendl, Ivan (CZE) 6-4 7-5 6-2

    Palermo, Italy
    R32 Munoz, Antonio (ESP) N/A 6-4 6-0
    R16 Gimenez, Angel (ESP) N/A 6-0 4-6 6-1
    Q Hjertquist, Per (SWE) N/A 6-2 6-4
    S Mottram, Buster C. (GBR) N/A W/O
    W Barazzutti, Corrado (ITA) N/A 6-4 6-0 6-4

    1980

    Nice, France
    R32 Haillet, Jean-Louis (FRA) N/A 6-0 6-1
    R16 Franulovic, Zeljko (CRO) N/A 6-2 6-2
    Q McNamara, Peter (AUS) N/A 6-2 6-1
    S Luna, Fernando (ESP) N/A 7-5 6-1
    W Orantes, Manuel (ESP) N/A 6-2 6-0 6-1

    Monte Carlo, Monaco
    R32 McNamara, Peter (AUS) N/A 6-2 6-2
    R16 Lendl, Ivan (USA) N/A 6-2 6-2
    Q Clerc, Jose-Luis (ARG) N/A 7-5 6-3
    S Gerulaitis, Vitas (USA) N/A 6-0 6-2
    W Vilas, Guillermo (ARG) N/A 6-1 6-0 6-2

    Nations Cup, Germany
    RR Alexander, John (AUS) N/A 7-6 6-2
    RR Higueras, Jose (ESP) N/A 6-1 6-2
    RR Mayer, Gene (USA) N/A 6-3 7-5
    S Vilas, Guillermo (ARG) N/A 3-6 6-1 1-6

    Roland Garros, France
    R128 Fillol, Alvaro (CHI) N/A 6-3 6-1 6-4
    R64 Gomez, Andres (ECU) N/A 6-2 6-2 6-1
    R32 Portes, Pascal (FRA) N/A 6-3 6-0 6-1
    R16 Taroczy, Balazs (HUN) N/A 6-2 6-2 6-0
    Q Barazzutti, Corrado (ITA) N/A 6-0 6-3 6-3
    S Solomon, Harold (USA) N/A 6-2 6-2 6-0
    W Gerulaitis, Vitas (USA) N/A 6-4 6-1 6-2
     
    #2
  3. deltox

    deltox Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2009
    Messages:
    2,639
    Location:
    NC, USA
    thats a 98% or 97% win percentage on red clay for Borg.

    unless im missing a tourney nadal is a combined 100 - 6

    which is a 94% win percentage

    nadal has 4 RG slams

    borg has 6

    i think its a TAD premature to call nadal the best clay courter ever, although he may very well be by the time his career is over.
     
    Last edited: Apr 18, 2009
    #3
  4. CyBorg

    CyBorg Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2007
    Messages:
    5,544
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    I've added up the other clay court results I have for Borg for 1977-1980, including green clay and red clay exhibition and I got 21-2. The losses are the US Open 4th round on green, when Borg was injured (Dick Stockton), and the final of the Buenos Aires exhibition on red clay to Connors, shortly after the 1978 US Open.

    Otherwise I included the four Pepsi Grand slams, the 1977 Hilton Head event, and some exos like Marbella and Cairo. I also have some results for which the surface isn't indicated, which may or may not be clay. I wouldn't take these results as seriously - they're impressive, but green and red clay aren't exactly alike.

    I think most would agree that Borg's peak on clay was 1977-80, or 1977-81.
     
    #4
  5. raiden031

    raiden031 Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2006
    Messages:
    5,997
    Due to my age, i didn't witness borg's playing days, but would you say he is more dominant than nadal or just comparable to him?
     
    #5
  6. deltox

    deltox Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2009
    Messages:
    2,639
    Location:
    NC, USA
    its debatable no doubt, but iby stats he still has better numbers. Nadal should could and probably will beat them by the end.
     
    #6
  7. CyBorg

    CyBorg Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2007
    Messages:
    5,544
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    Both are very dominant, in the sense that there's a feeling that no one can beat them on the surface unless they're hurt or seriously beat up.
     
    #7
  8. GameSampras

    GameSampras Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2008
    Messages:
    4,689
    Nope. Pete got 7 wimbys in 8 years. Nadal needs to a win a few more French Opens. I dont care much for the smaller tournaments. Domination at the slams on 1 surface is all that matters. IF Nadal falls short of 7 RG's than he is not the most dominant ever
     
    #8
  9. CyBorg

    CyBorg Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2007
    Messages:
    5,544
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    That's not how I define dominance. Dominance is shellacking the opposition; not consistently being just good enough to win from year to year.

    Dominance is being head-and-shoulders above. Being so good that others don't even give themselves a chance.

    Pete is probably the most accomplished grass courter in the open era. But was he as dominant on his surface as Nadal is on clay? I don't think so.
     
    #9
  10. 380pistol

    380pistol Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2008
    Messages:
    1,903
    I actually agree. But... Borg is closer or ahead of Nadal on clay, than anyone is to Sapras on grass in the open era.
     
    #10
  11. CyBorg

    CyBorg Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2007
    Messages:
    5,544
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    I don't know. It doesn't help that there's only one important event on grass now and ever since the Australian went to hardcourts. So it's quite hard to analyze.
     
    #11
  12. raiden031

    raiden031 Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2006
    Messages:
    5,997
    I'm trying to avoid the longevity argument. I'm talking about peak performance only during their dominant days.

    What was the more likely occurrence...Pete winning Wimbledon at his best or Nadal winning the French at his best? Obviously history shows that both occurred a lot but which was more of a sure thing?

    And with Borg's stats, he clearly was a dominant figure on clay, but I still don't know who is rivals were and whether anyone came close to challenging him. With Nadal he owns his biggest rival on clay (Federer) easily. Who was Borg's biggest threat on clay and how did he fare?
     
    #12
  13. GameSampras

    GameSampras Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2008
    Messages:
    4,689
    Well Vilas IMO was much more formidable opponent on clay than Fed ever was. Fed is the 2nd best player on clay in this era? Now Im not denying Fed is a pretty solid clay courter, but are we going to take competition into account as well? Fed in the grand scheme of things doesnt make even the top 10 best clay courters ever. There are handful of player much better on clay than Roger ever was. The clay court field hasnt been exactly the strongest competition, depth wise since the 90s.


    If you make a list of the best clay court players ever. I dont think Fed will be up there very high. Top 20 for sure. Not top 10. And Fed has been Nadal's only major opponent this far really
     
    Last edited: Apr 18, 2009
    #13
  14. Cesc Fabregas

    Cesc Fabregas Legend

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    Messages:
    8,318
    Vilas wasn't exactly tough competition for Borg, Borg wiped the floor with him when they meet on clay.
     
    #14
  15. GameSampras

    GameSampras Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2008
    Messages:
    4,689
    But Vilas will still be highly regarded ahead of Fed on clay.
     
    #15
  16. NandoMania

    NandoMania Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2009
    Messages:
    323
    The validity of the point ALL depends on the math, so are those numbers verified?

    Another important number: Borg's age when he won the 6th RG. Anybody?
     
    #16
  17. GameSampras

    GameSampras Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2008
    Messages:
    4,689
    The "most dominant" is just based on pure statistics and nothing else. Numbers arent the be all, end all to everything. It goes much deeper than that. Everyone should know that. Nadal has had the luxury of playing a pretty sub-par average clay field. The clay field hasnt been solid since the 90s
     
    #17
  18. deltox

    deltox Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2009
    Messages:
    2,639
    Location:
    NC, USA
    pulled straight off the atp website

    borg won his titles between ages 18-25 where he went 6 out of 7 RG
     
    #18
  19. deltox

    deltox Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2009
    Messages:
    2,639
    Location:
    NC, USA
    age is irrelevant, some players peak alot earlier than others. its about time frame more than age at the time

    so he went 6 out of 7 in 7 years,, nadal is 4 out of 4 in 4 years. so in 3 years we can see how he fairs for the record.

    nadal needs to sweep the clay court season this year and next to get the same percentages as borg.

    thats all the relevant info i can find unless you ask more questions.
     
    #19
  20. CyBorg

    CyBorg Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2007
    Messages:
    5,544
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    Guillermo Vilas is of course the man who held the longest clay court wiinning streak before Nadal broke it. But Borg owned him and it wasn't terribly close.

    He was definitely the second best clay court player after Borg in those years.

    Borg's toughest clay court opponent was probably Adriano Panatta - the 1976 champ.
     
    #20
  21. CyBorg

    CyBorg Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2007
    Messages:
    5,544
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    Borg won 6 of 7 in eight years, due to skipping the 1977 RG event (WTT).
     
    #21
  22. edberg505

    edberg505 Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2005
    Messages:
    6,073
    Damn, Nadal for winning on clay all the time. Now Nadal needs to lose to Djokovic, Murray, and Federer a few times then we can say the clay field is strong. LOL, this is too funny. So according to you the claycourt field went out in the 90's and will never be that strong ever again. Of course that is until Nadal retires or starts losing.
     
    #22
  23. Benhur

    Benhur Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2007
    Messages:
    2,562
    At the end of last year’s RG, Nadal was 115-2 on clay since his loss to Andreev in Valencia in early April 2005.

    Since then, he played and won 4 DC matches on clay, and 4 more this week at Monte Carlo.

    So, in the four-year span since that time until today, Nadal is 123-2 on clay. That’s a 98.40% winning percentage.

    Borg’s 88-2 during the four-year span mentioned (1977-1980) is 97.77%

    In terms of overall accomplishments on clay, Borg's 6 RG have their own weight and are better than 4, no question.

    In terms of sheer domination, Nadal is slightly ahead if you go only by numbers, and even more clearly ahead if you also consider the quality of the tournaments won outside RG during the same span.


    If you include 1981 (105-3) it is 97.22
     
    #23
  24. GameSampras

    GameSampras Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2008
    Messages:
    4,689
    Not saying it wont be as strong again. But you are kidding youself if you think the clay field is as strong today and has been for the last 4-5 years as it was in the 70s 80s and 90s
     
    #24
  25. edberg505

    edberg505 Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2005
    Messages:
    6,073
    If say, Courier was winning everything in sight on clay and no one could beat him either you'd be saying how weak the field was during that time. Obviously you only see one side of the argument.
     
    #25
  26. Leonidas

    Leonidas Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2009
    Messages:
    629
    Agreed. You have to look at the wuality of tennis, nothing else. If Nadal and federer weren´t around, people such as Gaudio, nalbandian, Puerta, Almagro and ferrer could have some clay masters events or even french open titles. the fact is: Djoker, Federer and specially Nadal are more complete than sheer clay courters. They can play awsome tennis from every part of the court, they can defend, the can hit hard and they are mentally ahead of the rest. Do you understand now that the clay field is not weaker than before? In fact, nadal, Fed or Djoker would beat Bruguera, fafelnikov, courier.... on clay. Period
     
    #26
  27. 35ft6

    35ft6 Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2005
    Messages:
    6,557
    #27
  28. 35ft6

    35ft6 Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2005
    Messages:
    6,557
    Way stronger than 70's and 80's, stronger than 90's by less, but still stronger. Lets put it this way, there will never be another French Open finalist with a continental forehand (Edberg and Mac). Guys are fitter, faster, and hit harder today.
     
    #28
  29. Benhur

    Benhur Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2007
    Messages:
    2,562
    One more comment I forgot to make.
    Once you have a loss, you can never reach 100%, no matter how many matches you win. The percentage growth is logarithmic with relation to the matches won, and every match won alters the percentage less and less. This means that as the number of matches grows, each fraction of a percentage becomes increasingly more significant as it approaches, but never reaches, 100%.

    Clearly, 123-2 is *much* better than 88-2, because it involves 35 more matches won with the same number of matches loss. That’s about 40% more matches won! (and if this weren't enough, the quality of the tournaments is clearly better also). Yet the percentage difference seems very close. But of course! Even if Nadal was 600-2, or 4,000-2, he would still be within 99%. But only a lunatic would say that 600-2 is “very close” to 88-2 just because it's barely 2 percentage points apart. The reductio ad absurdum of this kind of reliance on percentage would be a player with, say, a 3-0 record on clay over four years (maybe there are some). His winning percentage would be 100% - i.e. unsurpassable, and "better" than both Borg's and Nadal's.
     
    #29
  30. Dilettante

    Dilettante Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 13, 2005
    Messages:
    2,107
    Location:
    Katy Perry's belly button
    #30
  31. EtePras

    EtePras Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2008
    Messages:
    733
    ROFL

    The level of tennis is so much higher today, it's ridiculous. Roddick would annihilate these guys even on that surface. This is like saying the 300 Spartans would beat the US army today just because the kill-death ratio was so much better.
     
    #31
  32. CyBorg

    CyBorg Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2007
    Messages:
    5,544
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    If you ignore his early 2005 losses, yes. That's pretty arbitrary though.
     
    #32
  33. Benhur

    Benhur Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2007
    Messages:
    2,562
    Yes, it looks almost as if they are warming up. But in all fairness it should be said that both of them could hit a lot harder than that if they chose to, especially Lendl. They are just playing in a particularly exaggerated safety mode, where the *only* goal is to keep the ball in play and just wait for the other guy to make a mistake. Horrible strategy against someone like Borg. No wonder Lendl lost that one. Imagine Murray playing himself (I mean the version of Murray that played against Davydenko yesterday). It would look similar. But that does not mean he cannot play differently, as he showed today in the second set against Nadal.

    But in general, yes, they do hit harder today than back then.
     
    #33
  34. CyBorg

    CyBorg Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2007
    Messages:
    5,544
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    This is just nitpicky. 123-2 is not objectively better than 88-2. This is nothing but unnecessary semantics. If one really probes into the reality of the numbers then one will see that the losses can be judged differently.

    For example, does a loss by Borg when up 4-1 in Hamburg and then retiring due to injury really the same as a loss by Nadal at Rome where he was just soundly beaten?

    If Nadal does get to 600-2, then you'll have a point. However if Nadal loses tomorrow or next week, which he very well might does that then mean that his record isn't "much better" anymore? This is nitpicking to the max, IMO.

    A hypothetical record 100-2 isn't objectively more dominant than a hypothetical record of 80-2. They're both dominant.

    Now let's say that these aforementioned records account for 4-year spreads, but if extended to five-year spreads, they wind up 120-4 and 100-3, respectively. Is the latter now much better than the former?

    Frankly, I don't think so. All that the numbers say is that both players dominated. Claiming objective knowledge due to such minor differences is kind of petty.
     
    #34
  35. deltox

    deltox Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2009
    Messages:
    2,639
    Location:
    NC, USA
    since you wanna use old clips with crap racquets and terribad strings and such then lets hand rafa and todays field wooden sticks and see how he stacks up. or better yet invent a time machine and give lendel and borg some Babolats. hell even conners would be NASTY with todays hard hitting technology. Talk about hitting flat and hard, conners is the man to show that off.

    you cannot compare how one played 20 years ago to how one played today


    ridiculous
     
    Last edited: Apr 18, 2009
    #35
  36. deltox

    deltox Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2009
    Messages:
    2,639
    Location:
    NC, USA
    you selectively cut off the time frame your quoting.
     
    #36
  37. CyBorg

    CyBorg Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2007
    Messages:
    5,544
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    Context is important. One smartass shows up in a thread, brings out a youtube clip and smarmily declares that something is white, while something else is black. This is tired.

    No mention of the differences in surface, technology and other era-specifics.

    There are also match specifics. This clip is of the fifth set, where Lendl is extremely tired and moving terribly. Borg is staying back and grinding him to death. That's they played it on clay in this years. You couldn't hit many clean winners - not on that surface and not with that technology.

    Do we see many 100-point rallies today on red clay? No, guys hit winners from way back. Is it because they're better? Nah - look at their racquets and strings and compare them to what Borg was playing with.

    35ft6 is posting poison and I say this, perfectly aware on his position from years past. He isn't interested in nuance and context - he simply dismisses something without even slightest curiosity in the way things really work.

    It's a kind of hubris, egoism that I cannot stand. Just the mere suggestion that today professionals know how to play tennis, but just 30 years ago they had no clue.

    The amusing thing in all of this is that these judgements are all based on simple cognitive constructs that react to velocity and sometimes sound effects. Show someone that clip and then another one, such as this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTMx--E0OhY and people start thinking.

    All the while the aforementioned smartass completely ignores the most important context - that of the thread. The topic of dominance is dismissed and ignored in favour of a simplistic thread on how pros of the past weren't as good and therefore it doesn't matter. Yeah, ok. Whatever.
     
    #37
  38. CyBorg

    CyBorg Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2007
    Messages:
    5,544
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    You put it more efficiently than I did.
     
    #38
  39. CyBorg

    CyBorg Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2007
    Messages:
    5,544
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    Tarzan hit harder!

    Tarzan smash!

    Tarzan better!

    / your logic.
     
    #39
  40. deltox

    deltox Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2009
    Messages:
    2,639
    Location:
    NC, USA
    sorry wasnt paying attention to years when writing it all down off the atp site
     
    #40
  41. CyBorg

    CyBorg Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2007
    Messages:
    5,544
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    I think it's mostly a matter of velocity when it comes to that RG clip. Take the really slow red clay of the 1970s and compare it with the faster green clay and the effect is very different. For comparison:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMfBpkUJeKE&feature=related

    vs.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGvgXpuSKaE&feature=related

    In both cases, the racquets are ancient. Lendl started using much larger frames in 1980, which benefitted his power game. The switch the graphite manifested mostly in 82-83 and the entire tennis world began to adjust. A lot of cosmetic, commercial factors - players, in turn, adjust.

    The biggest change was string technology though - by the early 90s you already have the kind of tennis that we're used to seeing now. Almost.

    So, I think it comes down mostly to two things about those red clay clips: a) lack of velocity, which really isn't representative of all surfaces - YT, for example, has very few highlights of indoor tennis (one of the few they have is that Connors-Laver Las Vegas clip, which has lightning-quick rallies); and b) safety; guys not taking the ball as early or going for for the lines as much as they do today. Again, mostly the result of what the technology affords.

    Here's Connors-Laver on faster hard surface: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SptdffCeVmM
     
    #41
  42. Benhur

    Benhur Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2007
    Messages:
    2,562
    No. Not more arbitrary than any other 4 year period. We are comparing 4 year periods. We are in mid April 2009.
    But even if you were to include all of 2005, the record to date for Nadal would be 139-4, which is 97.20% to Borg's 97.22 if you include 1981 or to Borg’s 97.77 if you exclude it.

    But keep in mind my comments on the previous post. 139 matches won in 4.25 years is still more impressive than 88 in 4 years, or 105 in 5 years, for an equal or very similar percentage. And 123-2 in 4 years is clearly better and has a better percentage than 88-2 in 4 years. And don’t lose sight of all those Monte Carlos, and Barcelonas, and Romes, and Hamburger tournaments whence most of the wins were manufactured aside from RG.

    But I repeat. This does in no way detract from he fact that Borg’s overall accomplishments on clay are still better. The thread is about domination, though.
    In terms of domination over a 4 year period, the numbers seem to show Nadal ahead.

    (Similar case between Sampras and Federer in terms of overall accomplishment vs domination, except that in this case Federer's domination while at the top was much, much better than Sampras, whereas Nadal’s over Borg’s on clay is better but by a considerably narrower margin.
     
    #42
  43. JoshDragon

    JoshDragon Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2008
    Messages:
    2,235
    The 90s??...hmmm...wait...wasn't that during the days of Andre, who couldn't slide on clay, Moya, the one slam wonder, and Sampras the fluke 96 semi-finalist?

    Oh I should also include Medvev, he was a clay court monster at some of the masters series but he only managed to make one RG final in his whole career.
     
    Last edited: Apr 18, 2009
    #43
  44. Benhur

    Benhur Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2007
    Messages:
    2,562
    What do you mean unnecessary semantics? The semantics of obfuscation are entirely in your court, and they are indeed unnecessary.

    123-2 IS objectively a lot better than 88-2 over the same period of time. Just ask around.

    It is better in terms of percentage, and much better in terms of accomplishment, unless you miraculously believe that 35 wins beyond 88 (that's 40% more wins, with the same number of losses), is a meaningless detail. It isn't, and you should get used to it. For the exact same reason that 200-2 would be clearly better than 123-2. And for the same reason that 88-2 would be clearly better than, say, 68-2.
     
    #44
  45. CyBorg

    CyBorg Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2007
    Messages:
    5,544
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    The OP was talking about two years. I brought up four years simply to give a more complete picture. I also provided a record accounting for five years.

    You're right, if only Borg was playing in more Hamburger tournaments. What would have been. Playing in more events overall over four years does not mean more dominant.

    Not really. The results for 2005-2008 those of 1977-1980 are neck-in-neck. The whole April-to-April thing is just a convenient excemption made by you.

    Um, therefore it's not similar at all.
     
    #45
  46. CyBorg

    CyBorg Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2007
    Messages:
    5,544
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    I made no ambiguous statements of value. I presented partial records Borg simply for overview. At no time did I say that one was more dominant than the other.

    You twist the dates to fit your argument. And, sorry to disappoint, but only by truly perverted logic is 123-2 a lot better than 88-2.

    This is pretty crafty, to say the least. At least you buy your own bullshit.
     
    Last edited: Apr 18, 2009
    #46
  47. tennis-hero

    tennis-hero Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2008
    Messages:
    1,090
    Location:
    uk
    Muster 95-96 record 115-5

    in the 1990s when "clay tennis had more then 2 good players" :roll:

    therefore peak muster could beat borg and Nadal
     
    #47
  48. Benhur

    Benhur Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2007
    Messages:
    2,562
     
    #48
  49. Chelsea_Kiwi

    Chelsea_Kiwi Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,526
    Well it IS the weakest competition on clay ever so he would not have won as much if the competition had been stronger.
     
    #49
  50. deltox

    deltox Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2009
    Messages:
    2,639
    Location:
    NC, USA
     
    Last edited: Apr 18, 2009
    #50

Share This Page